Aesthetics of the top tube

SimonAH

The design/style police seem to decry anything other than a dead-level pencil thin top tube?

What’s wrong with the muscular, panther-shouldered look of a semi-compact frame top tube? Or modern carbon swoopiness?

secretsam

What's more drek is those horrible massive head tubes that you get on Spesh Secteurs, et al

Yuk

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

The design/style police seem to decry anything other than a dead-level pencil thin top tube?

What’s wrong with the muscular, panther-shouldered look of a semi-compact frame top tube? Or modern carbon swoopiness?

What's right with it?[/oldfart]

Kieran_Burns

Leading this years category for "Most pretentious Thread Title"


(I LIKE my swoopy carbon shouldered Trek and flat bottomed Tricross!)

bails87

I've got a Carbon 456 (see 'rough' in my sig) and I think it's bloody gorgeous.

It's functional because carbon can be made into the necessary shapes more easily than a metal tube, which, despite a bit of bending, is always going to basically be a metal tube.

It's the same, but less pronounced, on my Ribble. Bendy in the right places, and rock solid in the right places.

jonny_trousers

The asymmetrical top tube on my Columbus steel road frame is a thing of beauty, but I must admit, I do like thin, circular tubing for retro chic.

The Rookie

For retro, pencil thin (a la quality steel) is the way to go, but it doesn't suite all bikes/people, weight for weight a larger diameter is stiffer but has less impact resistance due to the thinner wall.

For myself for a modern look commuter (Spesh Sirrusfor example) something like an MTB top tube looks more in keeping (Visually I'd prefer mine to be thicker) a chap here uses a modern ex CX bike and that has quite thick tubes, another has a 1980's Peugeot road bike with pencil thin tubes (seatpost is 24mm OD)

As for shapes, hydroforming means you can make a top tube any shape you would reasonably want, so carbon has no benefit in that respect.

Simon

rolf_f

Largely the form/function thing. A bike is something where form should follow function - the basic, traditional, simple frame design is a perfect example of that. Most carbon silliness is a result of form taking the lead. Nothing wrong with that but easy to take the piss of!

Here is a perfect example - http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... =12776259; ignore the first pic and find the bike show pic on page two to see just how daft this bike is.

The Rookie

Why ignore the first pic? What comparing the 2 pics shows is that something that can look aesthetically pleasing in one colour scheme can be made to look cack in another, it doesn't change how pleasing the tube underneath looks surely?

Simon

rolf_f

The Beginner wrote:

Why ignore the first pic? What comparing the 2 pics shows is that something that can look aesthetically pleasing in one colour scheme can be made to look cack in another, it doesn't change how pleasing the tube underneath looks surely?

Simon

It's the same colour scheme - you just can't really see what the frame design looks like in the first pic - hence better to look at the second one.

chadders81

I like a nice squarish geometery myself. Hate hate hate the curve of Specialized top tubes. Make me feel sick.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Horizontal top tube = large rear triangle = more flex in the frame. Generally.

A bike is to be ridden, not just looked at.

rolf_f

Greg66 wrote:

Horizontal top tube = large rear triangle = more flex in the frame. Generally.

Which, given the obsession of many manufacturers in producing excessively rigid frames is a good thing. With the state of our roads, more flex is probably good for those of us who are of lighter build.

As you say, a bike is to be ridden, not just looked at.

jimmcdonnell

Specialized curved top tubes remind me of our old cocker spaniel dragging his ar$e across the living room carpet somehow. Beauty in the EOTB and all that, but they just look plain fugly to me.

jonginge

Rolf F wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Horizontal top tube = large rear triangle = more flex in the frame. Generally.

Which, given the obsession of many manufacturers in producing excessively rigid frames is a good thing. With the state of our roads, more flex is probably good for those of us who are of lighter build.

As you say, a bike is to be ridden, not just looked at.

The manufacturers would probably say something like 'designed for maximum lateral rigidity while maintaining ride comfort through vertical compilance' or some such

rjsterry

Based on the Surrey lanes I rode yesterday (think several miles worth of Putney Bridge but with much steeper gradients) then 'vertical compliance' is very much appreciated.

gtvlusso

For pure design alone, I like a horizontal top tube. However, for improved geometry and stiffness I think a semi-compact is near perfect.....

MichaelW

In a review of the old Pace RC1 MTB with is characteristic square section, CNC'd, sloping top tube, the reviewer faulted the design, saying that is was uncomfortable to sit on whilst he waited for his mates to catch up with him at the top of a hill.

Functionally a top tube should be comfy to sit on from the side, easy to shoulder without sliding away, and capable of resting in any bike carrier.

I like trad skinny tubes but then I'm traditional and skinny.